2026:MHC:234WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 1 of 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 20.01.2026

Pronounced on : 23.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

WP No. 27556 of 2025 AND WMP NO. 30873 OF 2025, WMP NO. 30875

OF 2025, WP NO. 27838 OF 2025, WMP NO. 31173 OF 2025, WMP NO.

31174 OF 2025

M/s.Imperial Shipping Service,

Rep. By Its Partner Tomy John Havign Office At

2/3, 3rd Lane, North Beach Road, Chennai-1.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Joint Commissioner Of Customs IV,

Customs House No.60, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai-1.

..Respondent(s)

WP No. 27838 of 2025

M/s Imperial Shipping Services,

Rep By Its Partner Tomy John, Having Office At

2/3, 3rd Lane, North Beach Road, Chennai 1

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Commissioner Of Customs (General)

Customs House, No 60 Rajaji Salai,

Chennai 1

..Respondent(s)

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records in order-in-

original No.113405 of 2025 dated 30.05.2025 on the file of the respondent and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 2 of 20

quash the same as illegal, incompetent, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction

and thereby render justice

WP No. 27838 of 2025

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records in order No 27 of

2025 dated 18.07.2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as

illegal, incompetent, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction

For Petitioner(s):Mr.V.Ragavachari, SC

for M/s.Sunny Sheen Akkara

For Respondent(s):Ms.Revathi Manivannan, SPC

in W.P.No.27556/25

Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, SPC

in W.P.No.27838/25

COMMON ORDER

The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a Customs House Agent

(CHA). W.P.No.27556 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned order-

in-original dated 30.05.2025 imposing a penalty of Rs.30 lakhs on the petitioner

under Section 114 of the Customs Act (in short “the Act”) for allegedly aiding

and abetting the exporter for attempting to export the prohibited goods.

2. W.P.No.27838 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned order

dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs suspending the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 3 of 20

petitioner’s Customs Broker License under Regulation 16 of the Customs

Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (in short CBLR, 2018).

3. Since the cause of action for passing the impugned orders in both the

writ petitions is one and the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by a

common order.

4. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner, who is a Customs House

Agent, is said to have aided and abetted M/s.Meatco Industries (in short

“Exporter”) to illegally export the prohibited “Bos indicus (Bull/Ox) meat” by

mis-declaring the same as “Boneless Buaffalo Meat”. Apart from imposing the

penalty of Rs.30 lakhs on the petitioner, the Customs Broker License of the

petitioner has been suspended under Regulation 16 of the CBLR, 2018, for

violating the provisions of Regulation 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CBLR,

2018. A finding has been rendered by the respondent in the impugned order in

original that the petitioner did not exercise its due diligence, and owing to the

same, it had aided and abetted the Exporter in their illegal act of attempting to

export a prohibited item. In the impugned order in original, the respondent has

further held that the petitioner did not alert the officials when the Exporter

transported the goods from Hyderabad, whereas the abattoir is situated in

Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 4 of 20

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr.Sunny

Sheen Akkara, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit as follows:-

(a) The petitioner has not violated Regulation 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of

the CBLR, 2018.

(b) The petitioner had never physically inspected the goods as their job is

only to assist the Exporter in their paper work to be submitted with the Customs

Department.

(c) As per Regulation 10 of the CBLR 2018, there is no duty cast upon

the petitioner to physically inspect the goods.

(d) On the face of it, the subject goods cannot be identified as prohibited

goods. Even the respondent, upon inspecting the subject goods, could not

identify the nature of the goods at the first instance, and they were able to

ascertain the same only after receiving the lab report.

(e) Even if the petitioner had inspected the goods, they would not have

been able to differentiate between them without the existence of a lab report.

(f) The Exporter had provided Health and Pre-shipment certificates issued

by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh,

which certify that the goods were indeed “Boneless Buffalo Meat”. Only based

on those documents, the petitioner had submitted the shipping bills which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 5 of 20

disclose the subject goods as “Boneless Buffalo Meat”. There is no mens rea

on the part of the petitioner for the alleged misdeclaration.

(g) To constitute an act of aiding and abetting as provided under Section

114 of the Act, it is absolutely necessary for the petitioner to possess mens rea

while committing an offence, which is not so in the present case, as the

petitioner never had the knowledge that the subject goods is a prohibited item

for export.

(h) In the impugned orders, it is observed that the petitioner was involved

in 10 other similar cases. However, final orders have been passed in all the

cases, except for the impugned order dated 30.05.2025, which is the subject

matter in W.P.No.27556 of 2025, exonerating the petitioner from any liability.

This clearly suggests that the respondent, only after perusing the documents

submitted before them and after thorough reading of the CBLR, 2018, had come

to the right conclusion that the petitioner was not liable for the acts of the

exporter in respect of the other similar exports handled by the petitioner.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that

the reasoning given by the respondent for holding that the petitioner violated

Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, on the ground that the petitioner neither

informed the Customs Department nor advised the exporter that the goods were

being transported from Hyderabad while the abattoir is situated at Tanuku,

Andhra Pradesh, is untenable. The duty of the petitioner under Regulation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 6 of 20

10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, is to merely advise their client to follow the Customs

Act, and in case of breach of the same, the Customs House Agent owes a duty

to inform the same to the Customs Authorities. At no point of time, the

petitioner is duty bound to inspect the goods or verify the genuineness of the

transactions. The petitioner cannot be delegated with the duty of the Customs

Department.

7. He would further submit that the reasoning given by the respondent in

the impugned orders for holding that the petitioner has violated Regulation

10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, is also incorrect. The respondent under the impugned

orders has held that the petitioner did not exercise due diligence when the

Exporter was transporting the goods from Hyderabad, instead of Tanuku,

Andhra Pradesh. However, under Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018, the

petitioner has to ensure that they carry out due diligence to ascertain the

correctness of any information that he imparts to his client with regard to

clearance of cargo or baggage. Once again, the Customs Department has

weaved an illusory violation with the sole intension to harass the petitioner,

because, any prudent person upon simply perusing Regulation 10(e) would

come to the conclusion that his duty is only to ensure that he carries out proper

due diligence when he imparts any information to the exporter, nothing more

nothing less. When such is the case, the reasoning adduced by the respondent is

misconceived and ought to be set at naught. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 7 of 20

8. He would further submit that the reasoning given by the respondent for

the violation under Regulation 10(n) is also baseless. The respondent has

miserably failed to apply his mind and has time and again given the same

reasoning under different shades to hold that the petitioner is liable for violating

the CBLR, 2018. Under Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, the petitioner has

a duty to verify the Importer Exporter Code Number, GST identification

number, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared

address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or

information. The petitioner had submitted all the aforesaid documents after due

verification by the Customs Authorities during the enquiry and at no point of

time, the respondent had refuted the authenticity of those documents provided

by the petitioner. When that is the case, and all those documents submitted by

them is not found fault with, there is no question of holding the petitioner liable

for allegedly violating Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018.

9. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his

contentions drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities:-

(a) Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s.Moriks Shipping

[2014 SCC Online Mad 11716];

(b) Commissioner of Customs Vs. M.Renganathan [2015

SCC Online Mad 14307]; and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 8 of 20

(c) a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case

of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs Commission of Customs

[2017 SCC Online Del 7683].

10. On the other hand, Ms.Revathi Manivannan, learned senior standing

counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.27556 of 2025, and Mr.Rajendran

Raghavan, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.27838

of 2025, would submit as follows:-

(a) Investigation conducted by the Customs Department has revealed

multiple critical discrepancies, and they are, (i) E-way bills showed goods

originated from Hyderabad, Telangana, not Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh as

declared in Health Certificate; (ii) Complete absence of Travel Fitness

Certificates for livestock transport; (iii) No livestock procurement documents

from registered markets; (iv) Abattoir M/s. Laham Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

failed to maintain proper inward/outward registers of animals; and (v) No ante-

mortem and post-mortem veterinary certificates as mandated by Red Meat

Manual was produced.

(b) The Exporter in his voluntary statement dated 04.12.2024, accepted

the ICAR-NMRI test reports, and admitted that replacement of meat happened

after dispatch from the abattoir. Investigation further revealed that the

petitioner filed shipping bills in 10 other similar cases where exporters

attempted to export prohibited “Bos Indicus (Bull/Ox) meat” by misdeclaring as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 9 of 20

“Boneless Buffalo Meat”. This pattern of violation establishes either active

complicity or wilful blindness on the part of the petitioner, thereby attracting

liability under Section 114(i) of the Act.

(c) Export of “Beef of Cows, Oxen and Calf” is absolutely prohibited

item under DGFT ITC (HS) Schedule 2 of Export Policy, and thus, liable for

confiscation under Section 113 of the Act.

(d) These writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioner has not

exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 128 of the

Act.

(e) Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, casts a mandatory and non-

delegable duty of due diligence on Customs Brokers which cannot be satisfied

by merely accepting documents at face value. The petitioner completely failed

to exercise due diligence by failing to verify the actual source of goods despite

glaring discrepancy between the declared source (Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh in

Health Certificate), and the actual origin (Hyderabad, Telangana, as per e-way

bills).

(f) The petitioner’s verification was wholly superficial and inadequate –

mere verification of QR code and APEDA registration does not absolve the

Customs Broker’s responsibility to verify, (i) whether goods actually came from

declared abattoir; (ii) whether proper livestock procurement records maintained; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 10 of 20

(iii) whether animals transported with Travel Fitness Certificates; (iv) whether

ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections conducted; and (v) consistency

between declared origin and actual transport documents.

(g) The petitioner, being a professional licensed Customs Broker

operating since 1982, cannot claim ignorance of; (i) prohibition on export of

Ox/Bull Meat; (ii) strict requirements of red meat manual; (iii) state laws

regulating cattle slaughter; and (iv) need for proper documentation of livestock

procurement and transport.

(h) The petitioner actively facilitated the attempted export by (i) filing

shipping bills with false declarations; (ii) arranging transportation of containers

from Hyderabad to Chennai; (iii) coordinating with port authorities for

clearance; and (iv) representing to Customs that all the documents were in order

despite obvious discrepancies. These acts constitute active abetment –

intentionally aiding, by act or omission, the attempted export of prohibited

goods, thereby attracting penalty under Section 114(i) of the Act.

(i) If the Customs Brokers are permitted to escape liability by claiming

reliance on exporters’ documents, it would, (i) undermine the entire regulatory

framework; (ii) incentivise wilful blindness and negligence; (iii) facilitate illegal

exports and smuggling; and (iv) defeat the purpose of licensing and regulation. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 11 of 20

(k) The impugned orders are a detailed reasoned orders supported by (i)

ICAR-NMRI test reports accepted by exporter; (ii) E-way bills and shipping

bills; (iii) voluntary statements under Section 108; (iv) absence of mandatory

documentation; and (v) documents recovered during searches. Therefore, the

petitioner has failed to exercise its due diligence while verifying the accuracy of

documents provided by the exporter and has facilitated the filing of shipping

bills for export of prohibited goods by misdeclaring “Bos Indicus (Ox/Bull)

Meat” as “Boneless Buffalo Meat”, and hence, the petitioner is liable to pay

penalty under Section 114(i) of the Act for aiding and abetting the exporter.

DISCUSSION:

11. The petitioner, who is a Customs House Agent, has been penalised

under Section 114 of the Act on the ground that they aided and abetted the

exporter who attempted to export “Bos Indicus (Ox/Bull) Meat”, which is a

prohibited item, by falsely declaring the same as “Boneless Buffalo Meat”,

which is a permissible item for export. A Customs House Agent can be

penalised for misdeclaration if there is direct evidence of their active

involvement, collusion, or intentional wrong doing. However, they cannot be

penalised on account of the sole fault of the exporter in the misdeclaration of the

goods meant for export. As a customs broker, the petitioner acts only as a

facilitator for the purpose of the exporter fulfilling all the paper work with the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 12 of 20

Customs Department. At no point of time, the customs broker physically

inspects the goods meant for export. Even as per Regulation 10 of the CBLR,

2018, there is no duty cast upon the petitioner to physically inspect the goods.

The Customs Authorities themselves were unable to identify at the first instance

the nature of the goods upon physical inspection, and only after the receipt of

lab report, they came to the conclusion that the subject goods is “Bos Indicus

(Ox/Bull) Meat”, a prohibited item, and not “Boneless Buffalo Meat” as per the

declaration made by the exporter to the Customs Department. Even if the

petitioner was required to physically inspect the goods as per the statutory

regulation, they would not have been able to differentiate the goods without the

availability of a lab report. The exporter had produced Health and Pre-shipment

Certificates issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of

Andhra Pradesh, that certified that the goods were indeed “Boneless Buffalo

Meat”, which is a permissible item for export. The said certificate issued by the

Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, has also not

been disputed by the respondent. The petitioner having relied upon

Government Certificates certifying the goods as “Boneless Buffalo Meat”,

which is a permissible item for export, cannot be penalised for the

misdeclaration committed by the exporter without the knowledge of the

petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 13 of 20

12. Only in cases where the Customs House Agent had made false

statements knowingly facilitating export of the prohibited goods or failed in

their statutory responsibilities, they can be penalised under the Customs Act or

statutory regulations framed thereunder. There must be direct evidence to prove

that there was mens rea (guilty mind) or actus reus (guilty act) on the part of the

Customs House Agent. In the case on hand, there is no evidence available on

record to prove that there was intentional wrong doing or deliberate

misrepresentation by the petitioner for declaring the goods as “Boneless Buffalo

Meat”, a permissible item for export, instead of correctly declaring the goods as

Bos Indicus (Ox/Bull) Meat, a prohibited item for export.

13. The petitioner had submitted Health and Pre-shipment certificates

issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra

Pradesh, with the Customs Department, which certified that the subject goods

were indeed “Boneless Buffalo Meat”, which is a permissible item for export,

and therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalised under the provisions of the

Customs Act for no fault of theirs. In the impugned orders imposing penalty on

the petitioner under Section 114 of the Act, the respondent has not gone into the

aspect of mens rea on the part of the petitioner, which is an essential ingredient

to be satisfied for the purpose of penalising the petitioner as per the provisions

of Section 114 of the Act. In the absence of mens rea, it can be conclusively https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 14 of 20

established that the petitioner has not aided or abetted the exporter in

committing the illegal act of exporting the prohibited goods.

14. It is also to be noted that, except for the case on hand, the petitioner,

who had acted as a customs broker for the exporters involving similar goods in

10 other similar cases, has been exonerated of any liability under the Customs

Act. It is only in the instant case, the petitioner is imposed with the liability to

pay penalty under Section 114 of the Act for allegedly aiding and abetting the

exporter to export prohibited goods. The fact that in identical cases involving

the very same issue, the petitioner has been exonerated has also not been

disputed by the respondent. In 10 other similar cases, the Customs Department

only after examining the documents has come to the conclusion that the

petitioner is not liable for the acts of the exporter in misdeclaring the goods.

15. The exporter is the one who raises E-way bills, and there is no role

played by the petitioner in raising the same. As seen from the voluntary

statement dated 02.01.2025 of Shri Tomy John, Partner, M/s.Imperial Shipping

Service, the petitioner has pleaded innocence to the fact that as per the E-way

bills raised by the exporter, the impugned goods originated from the abattoir’s

place, i.e., Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh, not from Hyderabad. However, the

respondent, without any evidence whatsoever, has penalised the petitioner for

abetment under Section 114 of the Act, which is arbitrary and illegal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 15 of 20

16. From the documents available on record, which were also placed for

consideration before the respondent, it is clear that the petitioner has not

violated any of the Regulations of the CBLR, 2018, more particularly,

Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n) relied upon by the respondent for suspending the

petitioner’s customs broker license, for the following reasons:-

(a) The duty of the petitioner under Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018,

is to merely advise their client to follow the Customs Act and its allied rules and

regulations, and in case of breach of the same, the petitioner owes a duty to

inform the Customs Authorities. The petitioner is not duty bound to inspect the

goods or verify the genuineness of the transactions as it is the duty of the

Customs Department.

(b) Under Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018, the petitioner has to

ensure that they carry out due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any

information that the petitioner imparts to their client with regard to clearance of

cargo and baggage. In the instant case, there is no evidence produced by the

respondent (customs department) to establish that the petitioner had given false

advise to the exporter which resulted in the attempt being made by the exporter

to export the prohibited goods.

(c) The petitioner has not violated Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018,

as per which, the petitioner has to verify the Importer Exporter Code number,

GST Identification number, identity of their client and functioning of their client https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 16 of 20

at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents,

data or information. The petitioner had submitted all the aforesaid documents

after due verification with the Customs Authorities during the enquiry, and at no

point of time, the Customs Authorities had refuted those documents. Therefore,

the question of holding the petitioner liable under Section 114 of the Act does

not arise for the fault committed by the exporter in committing the illegal act of

misdeclaration of the goods.

17. The petitioner has been licensed Customs House Agent since 1982.

The said fact is also not disputed by the respondent. The petitioner also claims

that they have an unblemished track record, and the said fact is also not rebutted

by the respondent in their counter affidavit filed before this Court. For no fault

of the petitioner, they have been penalised under the impugned orders, which

have been passed by total non-application of mind to the fact that in 10 other

identical cases, the petitioner has been exonerated. Since the impugned orders

have been passed by total non-application of mind to the fact that the petitioner

cannot be treated as an abettor as there is no mens rea on their part to commit

the actus reus, these writ petitions are maintainable despite the fact that there is

an alternate statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner.

18. The decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner also support the stand taken by the petitioner, which are as follows:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 17 of 20

(a) When the Importer Exporter Code is given to the Customs

House Agent, there is a presumption that an appropriate

background check would have been done by the Customs

Authorities, and therefore, when there is nothing on record that

the Customs House Agent had knowledge that the goods

mentioned in the Shipping Bills/Bill of Entries did not reflect the

truth of the declared goods, the Customs House Agent cannot be

penalised under Section 114 of the Act.

(b) When the Customs Department itself was able to ascertain

the nature of the goods attempted to be exported only after

obtaining a lab report, the Customs House Agent cannot be

expected to know the exact nature of the goods at the first sight,

and cannot be penalised for the misdeclaration of the goods made

by the exporter without their knowledge.

19. This Court, after giving due consideration to the documents placed on

record before this Court, is of the considered view that the petitioner has

conclusively established before this Court that they did not have any knowledge

whatsoever about the misdeclaration committed by the exporter, and therefore,

it cannot be said that they had abetted the exporter in attempting to export the

prohibited goods. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 18 of 20

20. For the foregoing reasons, since the impugned orders are arbitrary and

illegal, the same are liable to be quashed by this Court in respect of petitioner

alone, and accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed, and the impugned

order-in-original dated 30.05.2025, insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned,

namely, imposing a penalty of Rs.30 lakhs, as well as the consequential

impugned order dated 18.07.2025 suspending the petitioner’s Customs Broker

License, are hereby quashed. No Costs. Connected writ miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

23-01-2026

Neutral Citation: Yes

RKM https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 19 of 20

To

1. The Joint Commissioner Of Customs IV,

Customs House No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.

2. The Commissioner Of Customs (General)

Customs House, No 60 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27556 of 2025

__________Page 20 of 20

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

RKM

WP No. 27556 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 30873 OF 2025,WMP NO. 30875 OF

2025,WP NO. 27838 OF 2025,WMP NO. 31173 OF 2025,WMP NO. 31174

OF 2025

23-01-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis